LONE SURVIVOR

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Peter Berg
Year: 2013
Cast: Mark Wahlberg
Genre: Action/Biography/Drama/War
MPAA Rating: R

        Lone Survivor goes like this: talk-talk-bang-bang-bang-bang-boom-bang-boom-bang-boom-bang-bang-bang-bang-end. In short, if violence—and I mean intense violence—is up your moviegoing alley, then this is a must-see because Lone Survivor is all about the action. It daringly sheds its ability to be a character study and, in turn, becomes a violent, heavy-handed war film. I dug it, even though I grew tired of it after awhile.

        Wahlberg and company star in this exceptionally well shot movie about a group of special force marines who set out to capture, or even kill, Taliban figure Ahmad Shah. Little do they know that their intentions are about to be compromised by roaming members of the community whose lives lie in the hands of said marines. By choosing to spare their lives and let them go, they put themselves in a extremely vulnerable situation in the mountains of Afghanistan.

         First off, it's important to make note of the fact that Lone Survivor is not a movie that is powered by its performances. In fact, I'd say that, for a war film, its performances are just decent. The acting feels routine, and if anyone in this movie was even remotely attempting for an Academy Award nomination, that notion wasn't delivered in the slightest bit.

        But the thing about Lone Survivor is that it didn't feel like a movie that absolutely needed strong performances (though it, obviously, would've been nice to have them), and that's what gives the visceral scenes of war violence a sense of empowerment. The authority to go forward with such a confident style of filmmaking was also brought to life by the skillful camerawork, a craft of director Peter Berg.

        And what made up for the acting, emotionally, were the well-sewn-in minutes of real-life material that concerned not only pictures and videos of the actual people who are portrayed in the film, but also footage from the marines' training. These pivotal portions of the movie were completely effective, and didn't feel contrived whatsoever.

        Conclusively, Lone Survivor is a nicely edited, action packed war movie that, while it doesn't really feel like Academy Award worthy material, is still a legitimate, worthwhile movie to watch on a Saturday night with some pals. And on the big screen, the experience that this movie can provide is even better—and even more frighteningly realistic.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Cole's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

I often hear the phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”. It’s a metaphoric statement to be sure, but in the case of film, this can translate to “don’t judge a movie by it’s title, year, cast, director, or what have you”. It’s too broad a statement to ring true, so when people asked why I wasn’t going to like the new Tom Hanks movie, Captain Phillips, (because I told them that I predicted it to not be that great of a movie) for me to explain to them that I was judging it before seeing it was futile. Their response was “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. Yet as I write before you, the readers, today, I find myself recycling the words I said weeks ago, before the film’s release. “The trailer says it all. It probably masks a good performance by Tom Hanks, but the plot is too fleshed out in the description. My money says that it doesn’t have much more to offer than what it purports, which isn’t immensely spectacular, so therefore, I don’t believe it will be that great of a film.”

Captain Phillips chronicles the week (or so) long journey of Captain Phillips, from the superficial conversation about the small troubles back at home with his wife and kids to a hostage situation with Somali pirates on a freighter ship in the middle of the ocean. If you’ve seen the trailer, I’m telling you nothing new, and that’s this movie’s major flaw.

 
Director Paul Greengrass is quite fond of his shaky camerawork. I’d stick my neck out and say that it gave me a major headache in his previous The Bourne Ultimatum, but here, I found it quite effective. It matched the pure terror of the situation, and best of all, it felt documentary-like. Along with the effortless way in which Hanks plays your ordinary guy, the first thirty or forty minutes is captivating, legitimate stuff. Then after the initial entry, the movie takes a plot turn that we all knew was coming. The Somali pirates start to press hard, and then the film successfully turns into an exhilarating motion picture. With steady, controlled handle of the cast and knowledge of the plot, Greengrass keeps ahold of the reigns for a good chunk of time, making this scary, exciting, and worthwhile. 

But then after it hits the hour and twenty minutes (or something like that, this movie is long) mark, it starts to deflate like a balloon, sucking all life, vitality, and exuberance out of it slowly until the only thing it’s got dragging the weight is Hanks. Considering all this, my first comment when the movie was over was “They should just give Hanks the Oscar right now.” And I meant every word of it. Mr. Hanks is one of the most talented actors in the industry, without question. He possesses the so coveted ability that is creating an invisible emotional connection with the audience, and his films all benefit because of it. From scene one, the thing that struck me first was believability. Hanks paints the images on his face and in his words more vividly than nearly any artist could on paper. 

What’s unfortunate is that he couldn’t totally save it. What can I say? The script just ran out of ideas, becoming more tedious and tedious as it went. I found myself yearning to walk out of the theater after some time because I knew how it was going to end, and after the repeated continuation of scenes inside the lifeboat, I had had enough. I knew what was coming (it’s got Hollywood written all over it, hint hint), and I wanted it to either end with a bang or end sooner. To my misfortune, it didn’t. The expected and necessary peak of the climax never quite came.

 
Considering that it harbors a cast that truly hits it home here (including the newbie Somali actors that protruded in a casting call to secure a well-deserved spot in the cast), it’s a crying shame that I was let down by Captain Phillips. Keeping that in mind, I will say this, though: it’s probably the best two and a half star rating that I’ve ever given a movie. It’s moving enough, it’s well-shot enough, and it’s enjoyable enough. But it’s just not good enough.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE For Jesse's Review

Jesse's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Paul Greengrass seems like the ideal director to helm a movie about real life dramatizations. This can involve anything from terrorism to hijacking to the rifle shooting of a group of protesters (events or happenings that categorize some of his work). He is a former journalist and that may explain some of his career choices when it comes to various film projects. Of the three or more pictures I've seen of his, my understanding is that he likes to direct material that is based on true events (world news related, 9/11, you know, that sort of thing). Using hand held cameras and showcasing a sort of documentary feel, Greengrass picks unknown actors for a lot of roles in his films. He also shoots a flick in a way that allows these actors to have a smooth, unassuming style of delivering their lines. Scenes in his movies (like the near perfect United 93) have a real life feel to them. They almost suggest that you're not watching a movie but actual live content as it happens. This trademark is wholly evident in the Tom Hanks vehicle Captain Phillips. It's a 2013 release in which everyone seems overly natural on screen (this is a good thing). It's also one of the best pictures of the year (so far). With a superb, perfectly plotted opening 30 minutes and a sense of raw fear that accompanies the majority of that time, "Phillips" gets off to a stupendous start. What keeps it from perfection is a slightly bogged down second act in which the filmmakers sort of run out of steam. "Phillips" involves the act of kidnapping and piracy. With this notion in my mind, you'll find that a lot of the scenes between the kidnappers and the hostage seem like unnecessary filler. It doesn't help that the conversations between them are terse and involve minimal dialogue. Overall though, I'd say that this choppy (yet effective) nailbiter ends on a riveting, amped up note. It gives Hanks a chance to give one of his "Hanksian" performances (I didn't make up that term by the way) and it provides audiences a reason to believe that Greengrass is one of the most accurate, innovative voices in American cinema. If the film has any flaws, it would be the almost too by-the-book style of explaining true events and the aforementioned selected hostage/pirate episodes. From a director's standpoint, that sort of thing seems admirable. From an audience's viewpoint, it can be deemed monotonous and repetitive.

        Beginning without any opening credits (that's a Greengrass trademark) and featuring a small appearance by Catherine Keener (considering that she had a minor role, it would've been nice to see more of her in the movie), Captain Phillips tells the true account of Captain Richard Phillips (a straight faced Tom Hanks). He is a merchant mariner whose ship, the Maersk Alabama, gets hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. Their first order of business is getting on board and holding people up with machine guns. Then, they ultimately want the insurance money (or as they say, they want millions). When these pirates don't get what's coming to them, they eventually get on a small vessel boat and take the Hanks character with them as a hostage (this is where the movie loses some of its dramatic power before regaining it in the final, explosive ten minutes).

        That's the overall gist of "Phillips" and with films like Bloody Sunday and the aforementioned United 93 (and this one as well), Greengrass likes to include a lot of faces that you've never seen on screen before. He squeezes terrific performances out of all of them and, in my mind, this takes the star power away and lets the viewer concentrate more on the story. This technique also makes a lot of the material seem more like real life (as mentioned earlier in the review). With Captain Phillips, a lot of the actor's lines seem improvised. And what he does with the casting of the antagonists (the hijackers with Barkhad Abdi as their leader) is absolutely amazing. These gentlemen had never acted in a movie before and got picked out of a group of 700 people (in an open casting call). Their screen presence is undeniably electric (the looks in their eyes are searing) and they hold their own with a 30 year acting veteran like Hanks. Speaking of star Tom Hanks, with the casting of unknowns being the director's strength, you wonder if the addition of him as the lead would hurt the proceedings. Honestly, I don't think it matters because this dude is a reputable icon and a darn good actor anyway (not an easy combination to pull off). Playing the "everyman" to perfection, he can undeniably get away with it because he effortlessly embodies the character of Richard Phillips. He sort of underplays this performance in certain spots and acts with a slew of dead on mannerisms (he only emotes when needed). With the exception of him clearly campaigning for an Oscar in the last few minutes of the film, I'd say that this is one of his 5 best screen performances of all time (especially concerning believability). I saw the actual Captain Richard Phillips on the news a week ago, and Hanks nails his persona. He looks like him, has the same facial expressions, and his accent is dead-on.

        All in all, the real life story of Captain Phillips was the perfect film for an accomplished director like Paul Greengrass and a Hollywood goody goody like Hanks (watch him in the last scene, not many films showcase stuff like this) to make. It has its ups and downs, but my overall observation is that it has what a lot of films today lack, which is the natural gift of sophistication. It also meets the basic Oscar criteria because of its association with its multiple Academy Award winner and the addition of its heroic true story value. You could also throw in historical value, too, as we all know that the Academy craves their antiquity. In its possibly overlong running time (it's not significant enough to fault it for), Captain Phillips is an accurate, professionally told, true story, an "everyman" drama, and a directorial showcase all rolled up into one. Oh yeah, and it's a solid action adventure with good sea legs, too. I always wanted to say that.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Review

LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Lee Daniels

Year: 2013

Cast: Forest Whittaker, Oprah Winfrey, John Cusack

Genre: Biography/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Considering that it’s a historically significant movie event with an all-star cast, Lee Daniels’ The Butler has a lot to live up to. It’s my duty as a film critic to formulate a knowledgeable summary of the quality of the film and pass it on, but “The Butler” is one I’m having a hard time with because of how wide-ranging this movie is. I can almost guarantee that no single person will formulate the very same judgement, but I’ll share mine anyhow. “The Butler” is a movie that, while it sometimes contains scattershot narrating that may offset the viewer, ultimately tells an applaud worthy story that captures quite a bit of cinematic and historical importance all the while exercising its cast effectively.

        “The Butler” chronicles the lives of a White House black servant’s family and his struggles throughout his long life. It begins with the tragic death of his father and continues to chronicle his endeavors in a mostly heavy handed manner. While it isn’t a bone-deep character study, the movie tries hard to the point where one might say that it’s good enough. The above mentioned wavering narrative had me pointing out flaws, but what really saves it is how passionately Forest Whittaker commands the screen. As the viewer, I could occasionally sense the passion he emitted while attempting to (and succeeding at) emoting in crucial scenes that, without his acting prowess, would have otherwise suffered.

        I went to the theater with my grandmother, a woman who lived through the time of this story, and she didn’t love it; neither did I. Ultimately, it’s a movie that is never fully engaging, though it really should be. Out of all of the movies we’ve seen this year, The Great Gatsby was our favorite, if for no other reason, then because of how involving it was. While Lee Daniels’ The Butler is neither of those things, it still contains enough good qualities to get my recommendation, despite the fact that it’s not as potent as it probably should be.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE DOORS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★
Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Oliver Stone

Year: 1991

Cast: Val Kilmer, Meg Ryan, Frank Whaley, Kevin Dillon

Genre: Biography/Drama/Music

MPAA Rating: R

        After winning two best director Oscars (Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon respectively) at the Academy Awards, Oliver Stone could pretty much do whatever he wanted. So given his affection for 60's nostalgia, he decided to helm this 1991 biopic on one of rock and roll's all time greatest bands (one of my favorite rock groups as well). The Doors is a prime example of what a filmmaker can do if the vision of what's on screen is entirely his (not necessarily what the remaining members of The Doors themselves had intended). With as much clout as any major voice in Hollywood, Stone made an exercise that veers almost completely away from the storytelling of the band, and instead concentrates on the madness and mystery of lead singer Jim Morrison. The result is a fiery, yet saturated, powerful, yet overwhelming, and sad, yet involving portrait of a musical icon who passed over much too early. Now I gotta warn ya, this thing is over 2 hours long and it's exhausting. It's also an ambitious mess (don't worry, this is a compliment) that's filled with every Stone nuance in the book (you almost have to wear dark sunglasses to tackle the look of it). But it's saddled with a brilliant performance by Val Kilmer as the lead. And he anchors this kaleidoscope of late 60's culture bent on entertaining you if you let it. So to make things clear, I am to this day, a huge fan of Oliver Stone's 90's endeavors. He has calmed down a bit as a director these days. And don't get me wrong, I still think he knows what he's doing behind the camera, but I kinda wish the maverick in him would come back (a la The Doors). There is too much control with his technique in present day. I kinda hate it to be honest.

        Anyway, this movie tells the story of the band going from heralded beginnings (guitarist Robbie Kreiger and Jim Morrison were students who met at UCLA film school) to virtual stardom, and then to an eventual break up with the lead vocalist (the drummer, keyboard player, and lead guitarist continued on but the film ends with Jim's death). The Doors chronicles the years 1965 to 1971. Two to three aspects are driven home by Stone to get his point across. One is Morrison's alienation from the other band members (Kevin Dillon as John Densmore, Kyle MacLachlan as Ray Manzarek, Frank Whaley as Robbie Krieger) through his relentless drug/alcohol abuse during their tenure. Second, we get a sort of unclear spiritual journey that Kilmer (Morrison) goes through in the form of flashbacks caused by a drug fueled haze-type behavior. Lastly, Stone puts emphasis on Morrison's relationship with his hippie girlfriend Pamela (Meg Ryan). Their love affair is volatile and dangerous. Just watching them together makes you think that they would not, and could not live very much longer. Finally, there is the music. The concert and studio recording scenes are so well filmed and seem so real (that's because the actors actually learned to play the instruments from what I understand), you get the sense that Mr. Stone really took his time to get the right attention to detail. Oh, and I almost forgot, look for Crispin Glover doing an Andy Warhol impersonation (In the film, Jim meets him at a party). With Velvet Underground's music in the background, it's a wallop of a scene in terms of sensory overload.

        To put it all into perspective, if you are a fan of the music of The Doors and don't mind a film that's rough around the edges, this is something worth checking out. The performances are adequate and Kilmer's turn as rock and roll's misunderstood poet is downright Oscar worthy (the reason he got snubbed could have been the film's early release in March). Yes, the overall structure of what's on screen is choppy and somewhat of a downer, but there is a storytelling light at the end of the tunnel. And as usual, Stone likes to wrap things up rather quickly. Is it justifiable after two hours and twenty minutes? Yeah, why not? By then, the audience has embraced the bruised heart of a fallen legend. Morrison is dead, but the music of The Doors lives on forever. This film is a raw, battering interpretation of a band who's sound could never be copied. At close to the two hour mark, Frank Whaley (Robbie Krieger) says to Jim, "You said you like pain. Well, you run from it every chance you get." Well, I plan on viewing The Doors again and again and believe me, no matter how intense Stone's vision gets, I certainly won't run from it. That's a guarantee.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: If creating a fitted atmosphere and having a devoted cast were all it took to maker a good film, then The Doors would be one of the best I’ve ever seen. From the get go, Oliver Stone does a great job recreating Jim Morrison’s early days of playing music with his band, all the while deciding if he truly wanted to be a filmmaker (that’s what he was in college for at the time). The set design is impeccable and the extras (especially in the concert scenes) are used to the movie’s full benefit. When you watch it, you really get a feel of what life was like—in some parts—of his life because of all this. Some of the scenes that flesh out his euphoria and drunken hazes are so well done that you feel a bit delirious yourself. What’s unfortunate is that the movie never quite makes you empathize with him. It never lets you understand him because it feels as if the script doesn’t understand him itself. Morrison is portrayed as an ugly drug abuser, and barely anything more. His poetry, his interest in film, his kind side, and his struggles are pushed aside. Instead, the film stands open arms accepting his end result. It doesn’t do what other music biopics like Almost Famous did, and that is present the musician in a way that is fair to him, and to us as the viewers.

BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Oliver Stone
Year: 1989
Cast: Tom Cruise, Raymond J. Barry, Caroline Kava
Genre: Biography/Drama/War
MPAA Rating: R

  Before Oblivion and Jack Reacher, Tom Cruise didn’t just pay someone to act for him, or “phone it in”, a phrase we fellow movie critics use for weak performances from a good actor. That statement is evident in his best performance by far, Born on the Fourth of July (I haven’t yet seen Cocktail or Risky Business, but then, I don’t believe I stand corrected). Here he plays the most difficult type of character that film has ever created: a confused man that possesses both internal and external conflicts, and executes it flawlessly.

  Cruise stars here as a boy (not adult) who chooses to enlist in the Vietnam war, in attempt to “serve like our fathers” and stop the spread of communism, or so he thought at the time. When he returns, he eats his words per se, because he is paralyzed from the chest down and passionately believes that the United States government lied to him, and wrongly persuaded him to help in the war effort, thus transforming the once all-star wrestler and innocent kid into an angry anti-war activist. When you watch a movie that is sad, the most harrowing and sorrowful moments are usually at the end; that’s not the case here. The movie is shot in such a raw manner, that you feel as if you really are witnessing life’s most gruesome moments and the truth of reality. It’s almost too much to ask for nowadays, and maybe that’s why I enjoyed Robert Zemeckis’ Flight more than most viewers of the film because it's so shockingly realistic. In reality, there are unhappy times all throughout the course of one’s life, not just at end’s meet; that is shown displayed relentlessly in Born on the Fourth of July.

  In many sports, there is the term “triple-threat”, which means that the person identified as such can pose a risk to the other team with three different actions. I think it’s safe to say that Oliver Stone is at least a triple-threat player in the finest sport of all, cinema. His film’s excel in most areas: cast, story, material, enjoyability, memorability, and emotion (from the characters and the audience)—yet he, or a lot of his movies make one significant flaw in their outcome, and that is the ending. Stone seems to speed up the process of closing out his movies by rushing the characters into getting along, or in most cases, just creating an accepting tone for the characters, thus changing the atmosphere that the rest of the movie tried so hard to create. As an audience member, I was put off entirely by the abrupt change.  That’s what keeps Born on the Fourth of July from being a better movie—and Oliver Stone, a better director—and that’s a shame.

        But overall, the movie's the far from a letdown. In fact, I'd place it generously in my top 50 films of all time. I'd say that it is among Tom Cruise's best films of all time, it's in Oliver Stone's top five films of all time, and among some of the best war films of all time. After seeing this, it's safe to say that I'm a proud admirer of Oliver Stone's work (if I wasn't already before), and I only hope that he can learn to shape his closure better in future movies to come.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Oliver Stone was the perfect director to helm a film about the horrors and brutality of the Vietnam War. Being a Vietnam vet himself, he was able to bring exquisite period detail to every frame thus garnering a well deserved Oscar for best director at the 1990 Academy Awards. With all that being said, Born On The Fourth Of July is one of Stone's best films, but everything in it takes a back seat to Tom Cruise's powerful, blistering performance as Ron Kovic, a soldier who was wounded in a dogfight and lost all feeling from the mid-chest down. Based on a true story, Cruise commands the screen and has never been this good in a film since. He hits a home run, better yet, a total grand slam. 

HYDE PARK ON HUDSON

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Roger Michell

Year: 2012

Cast: Bill Murray, Laura Linney

Genre: Biography/Comedy/Drama

MPAA Rating: R

        I've always been a big fan of Bill Murray ever since I was a kid. I've watched a majority of his movies over and over. One thing you can always take from his work is that no matter how good or bad it is, he always seems to give a solid performance. The dude is pretty decent and has never really been accused of wrecking a movie. Although I was a little turned off when he went dramatic right after Ghostbusters (1984) (he did a flick called The Razor's Edge which was a huge flop), I now realize that it seems commonplace for him to do more than just comedy. Every once in a while he seems to hold back the funny to show that he can act in any film genre. Here we have Murray playing Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Roger Mitchell directed Hyde Park on Hudson. Notice I haven't mentioned the film up until now. That's because there is not a whole lot to talk about. It's slow, it's dull, it's uneccesary, and it should only be viewed as a reason to see Murray flex his acting muscle. Like I said a few sentences ago, you can always trust this guy to give a good performance in an ocean of bad filmmaking. With Hyde Park on Hudson we have exhibits A, B, and possibly C.

        It's about the last year of the 1930's with President Franklin D. Roosevelt enjoying some time at his country estate in Hyde Park. While there, he gets a visit from the king and queen of England (Samuel West as King George VI and Oliviia Colman as Queen Elizabeth) in hopes that the American people will see through him, the U.S.support for the United Kingdom. This all takes place as World War II is approaching. On the side, Roosevelt takes time to enjoy the ladies in Hyde Park as evident by his affection for a fifth cousin and wouldbe mistress in Margaret Suckley (played solidly by Laura Linney). Their relationship spans much of the proceedings and it becomes the main essence of the plot. In my mind it would've helped the film more if other aspects were examined, you know the important stuff (we're talking war here people).

        But nevertheless, in a vehicle yearning to be a movie, you have just the two plot points mentioned in the last paragraph. These are sadly the only ones to work with. Trust me this is not a very compelling drama. But hey, try telling that to the musical score (I made this point earlier in my review of Somewhere In Time). No matter what the scene, the outcome, or whatever, there is a compelling synergy of all kinds of instruments playing at the same time. This music is written to try to pump up the dramatic momentum in many a scene. I don't know about you, but when I see a character eating a hot dog or a sequence with two of the characters driving down a dirt road while making googly eyes at each other, that doesn't really evoke a symphony in my book. Even with the beautiful and haunting music, this movie doesn't established a point and even worse, doesn't try to make one.

        In the end, Hyde Park on Hudson suffers from being 94 boring minutes coupled with a few shots of beautiful scenery courtesy of London, England (masquerading as Hyde Park, New York). It also posesses what I think is a meaningful or I should I say meaningless, sense of time and place. The real reason to view this thing is the Murray screen performance. It is the true high point. Being calculated, meticulous, and assured, I would put it up there with his best work. The movie however, is the equivalent of watching paint dry. And I'm talking really, really wet paint.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

WALK THE LINE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Director: James Mangold

Year: 2005

Cast: Joaquin Pheonix, Reese Witherspoon, Ginnifer Goodwin

Genre: Biography/Drama/Music

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Walk The Line is undoubtedly one of the best biopics I have ever seen. You can quote me on that; and I’ve never been more confident in a quote of mine than I am about this. Fortunately, this film doesn’t only expose us to the life story of Johnny Cash, but also June Carter, two of the finest musicians of their time, and how they interacted over the course of their careers.

        Too many times biographies drag, and lack entertainment and the ability to edit themselves as far as surplus content go; and Walk The Line is no exception, as there are a few scenes that if standing alone would qualify it as such. But really, I didn’t feel bored, or deprived of entertainment whatsoever. I was fascinated with Cash’s drug dependency, and marital problems, and persistence; I felt a sense of rawness. Protagonists are often portrayed as flawless, or nearly flawless characters that overcome challenges easily. Not here. Johnny Cash was no saint, just like the rest of the population; and nothing was sugarcoated.


        I think that one of the main reasons that Walk The Line played out so well is because it was riddled with good performances. As Roger Ebert said it, “The music is great. The drama is great. The writing is great. The performances are great. I love it!”. Well said, Ebert. Reese Witherspoon has numerous movies. And let me say that they’re not all good (This Means War). But I never really saw her an incredible actress until this movie. Sure, I was persuaded by Water For Elephants. But this was the deciding factor; it’s her best movie by far. And the same goes for Joaquin Phoenix. Although I seem to be the only critic that loves The Village, I believed that his performance was just ordinary. And Gladiator, the same, despite the fact that he won an Oscar. But once again, this movie is the best of him. These extraordinary performances fueled the film to good measure; it never ran out of gas.

        One of the best things about Walk The Line in my opinion, was the opening introduction to the death of his brother, and what influenced his lifelong dream. That’s what I think a lot of biopics lack, a moving backstory; it isn’t missing here. His relationship with his static parents (another set of good performances) never end from his childhood, throughout his fame, and thereafter. We’re aware of that as viewers, also.   

        All in all, there is an overwhelming sense of reality here. Walk The Line is as real as movies get. Sci-fi lovers beware, you’ll get quite a bit of real life in this movie.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Walk The Line is a biopic that entertains and tells a darn good story. You really get to know the life of a rock legend in Johnny Cash. You also get insight into his strained relationship with his dad, his sadness for the loss of his brother, and his yearning to win the heart of the woman he loves in June Carter. It's a wonderful movie with top notch performances. Easily one of the best films of 2005.

42

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Brian Helgeland

Year: 2013

Cast: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie

Genre: Biography/Sports/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        It really bothers me that 42 is claimed to be too straightforward, or too “by the book”. It’s as if the label “based on a true story” automatically impedes its qualification of a good movie. I’m here to advise you not to heed the warnings of many critics out there, because 42 is one you’ll enjoy, baseball fan or not.

        Chadwick Boseman does a great job playing the character of Jackie Robinson, the African American who changed baseball forever. This is a bit shocking as he has appeared in numerous television series, but an extremely minimal amount of movies. And it’s only so often that the actor that plays a role actually looks like the person he’s portraying! What’s even rarer than that is when a movie has the ability to catch me off guard, to completely and utterly surprise me. That’s just what 42 did.

        The reason this movie is so enjoyable is because it has the perfect balance of light and heavy material. It focuses on Robinson’s struggle with harassment and cruelty while playing for the MLB, and Branch Ricky’s (owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers) desire to change the game he loves. Despite the dramatic material, you find yourself laughing due to a number of different factors including Harrison Ford’s acting. But overall, I’d just say that 42’s chemistry is a forte.

        Never underestimate Jackie Robinson, because like all the rest of the jerks in the baseball industry in the 1940’s who didn’t believe in him, you’ll feel pretty stupid afterwards. That's how I felt about underestimating the film before viewing.

        I can undoubtedly state that the theater that I viewed 42 in was the most packed theater that I’ve ever been in. Open seats were scarce, as were members of the audience not applauding after the film’s triumphant ending. I earlier stated not to heed critics warnings. So what validates my opinion is the fact that I viewed and loved it as an audience member, a critic, a non-baseball fan, a baseball fan, and a compelled athlete. I think that’s enough to write 42 up as a good movie. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: I liked 42. It's a simple, well made film about the beloved baseball legend, Jackie Robinson. With a surprisingly different (out of the box) performance by Harrison Ford (GM of the Brooklyn Dodgers) and a luscious background for sense of time and place on the baseball field, the movie wraps everything up in a nice neat little package. What keeps it from greatness is its minimalistic approach to the subject matter. But for its dead on release date catered to the moviegoing public (the same month as Jackie Robinson day), it's a great way to spend an afternoon or evening at the movies.

HITCHCOCK

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Year: 2012

Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson

Genre: Biography/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13


        “The great and glorious, genius Alfred Hitchcock” has struck again, only this time, it’s Anthony Hopkins; you can’t really tell the difference though due to his flawless acting. Hitchcock is a great movie that told the story of Alfred Hitchcock in the time of Psycho. Fortunately, when I saw this film I had already seen Psycho, which was a major advantage for me, the way I saw it. While you don’t necessarily have to have already seen it, it definitely will make the film more enjoyable. Hitchcock delves into the pre-production of the film and how it affected Hitchcock and his wife’s relationship, and his haggle with the MPAA, but not too much more, which was the film’s biggest flaw. After viewing it, while it is a great movie, I realized that it was forgettable because the film was too short and the emotional content as far as his pressure was fairly shallow.

        While I don’t consider the film firsthand as a biography, it did tell the life story of Hitchcock; so technically speaking, it is one. This means that it should’ve been longer than the 98 minutes that it ran for. Films such as The Kings Speech and Goodfellas are biographies that could not have been done in a shorter time; for good reason too, as they both spent much time developing their foundation. In my opinion, there are very little biographical films that can accomplish the label “good” when they are short. Don’t get me wrong, this movie earns that label, but because of its briefness, the movie does lack that emotional tug that makes us as viewers remember the film among many other biographies. 

        Aside from the described flaws, the film is immaculate. Entertainment factor, while it is a problem for some biographies, is not for Hitchcock. It focuses on so many different aspects of his career in Psycho’s time, and it’s all piled up into one little hour-and-a-half; how could it not be entertaining? Many intense scenes came out of Hitchcock’s assumptions of his wife’s relationship with another man, that were critical to the outcome of the film. Scarlett Johansson played the role of Janet Leigh (go figure, an actress playing an actress), and stole Hitchcock’s attention off and on the set, which was another thing that fueled his wife’s anger, and raised his suspicion. With many more intriguing factors to the film, I found myself stammering, “It-it-it can’t be over!”, but it was, to my misfortune. 

        Let’s face it; Hitchcock is irreplaceable. He changed the art of mystery forever, and his mark will forever remain on cinema. But how accurate, I wonder, were his dreams and nightmares of the characters in the movie? The answer to that is: it doesn’t matter. If those dreams occurred, great. If not, fine. But I’ll tell you this, it certainly made the movie better, and maddening, as we see what Hitchcock envisioned, and how he tried to produce something of that caliber; it resonates.

        To those who have seen some of Hitchcock’s works such as Rear Window, Vertigo, The Birds, and many more, this film did a necessary task for Hollywood; it celebrated Hitchcock even more. And to those that haven’t, it opened many eyes. Hitchcock left me yearning for more, unfortunately, but also very pleased with what I got.  If it were dessert, I would’ve ordered seconds.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

MONEYBALL

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Year: 2011

Cast: Brad Pitt, Robin Wright, Jonah Hill

Genre: Biography/Drama/Sport

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Let's me just start this review by saying that if The Social Network (2010) were a baseball movie, it would be the equivalent of Moneyball, my pick for best film of 2011. Both films are intelligent, dialogue driven, and brilliantly acted by the leads. And what I didn't notice until recently was that both films were written by the same guy, Aaron Sorkin of TV's West Wing fame. His screenplays crackle with biting information about the world the characters inhabit. 

        From his razor sharp script and director Bennet Miller's careful direction, comes Moneyball, a film depicting the true story of GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) taking his 2002 Oakland A's to the playoffs (20 game win streak) with a less than talented roster and minimal payroll. He gets help from Yale grad Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) and the two of them compile a roster of players based on unusual hidden stats that a lot of other teams don't pay attention to. This whole concept is based on a book Hill's character reads entitled Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. To the dismay of team manager Art Howe (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman who may be the world's best character actor), the team starts out slow and makes his job miserable. But over time, the A's go on an unflappable streak and end up winning an enormous amount of contests for a standard 162 game season.    

         What really stands out in Moneyball is that it's different from most baseball films. It goes behind the scenes. You don't see a lot of the game being played. You see people talk about baseball. You get the ins and outs of the business. Normally, this would be looked at as some kind of documentary, but the film doesn't let that happen. It expertly delves into the mind of Pitt's character while not quite letting the viewer see if the wheels are turning. It's about the performances and Pitt, as Beane garnered him an Oscar nomination that was well deserved. In fact, all the actors make it look real, they make scenes stick. You really wonder if half of them were actually working for Major League Baseball.  

        Ultimately, if you want to be inspired or moved by the power of movies, Moneyball is an exercise in intelligent, good old fashioned film making. It's a HOME RUN!

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Moneyball is one outstanding movie. You see this movie not to watch a baseball game, but to be taken beyond the field, beyond the bunker, and beyond the locker room. It takes you into the life of a struggling, yet confident and cunning GM for a baseball team that lacks overall skill, but has a great man behind it. Not only does it do that, but it's really fun to watch also. This may very well be one of Brad Pitt's best movies. Truly!